Forest Stewardship Council®
Stakeholder consultation of the FSC Centralized National Risk Assessment
Country: Sweden
Controlled Wood Category: 2 (Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights)
Please provide your details:
Contributor (Name):
Organization (if applicable):
E-mail:
Please mark all boxes that are relevant to you or your organization with an “X”.
FSC Member
Certificate Holder
FSC-Accredited certification body
Accreditation Services International
FSC International
FSC Regional Office
FSC Network Partner
Standard Development Group
Other
If you are an FSC member, please indicate your chamber and sub-chamber. If you are not an FSC
member, please indicate the main interest you represent.
Environmental
Social
Economic
If you are an FSC member, please indicate your sub-chamber.
North
South
Please send this document saved with your comments to Darren Brown ([email protected]) by 2 April
2015.
1 of 5
FSC International Center GmbH · Charles-de-Gaulle-Straße 5 · 53113 Bonn · Germany ·
T +49 (0) 228 367 66 0 · F +49 (0) 228 367 66 30 · [email protected] · www.fsc.org· FSC® F000100
Geschäftsführer | Director: Dr. Hans-Joachim Droste· Handelsregister | Commercial register: Bonn HRB12589
Forest Stewardship Council®
Table 2. Requirements for traditional and human rights assessment (FSC-PRO-60002a V1-0 FSC National Risk Assessment Framework)
Indicator
2.1. The forest
sector is not associated with violent
armed
conflict,
including that which
threatens national
or regional security
and/or is linked to
military control.
Context and considerations
Is the country covered by a
UN security ban on exporting timber?
Is the country covered by
any other international ban
on timber export?
Are there individuals or
entities involved in the
forest sector that are facing
UN sanctions?
Is the area a source of
conflict timber1?
Is the conflict timber related
to specific operators? If so,
which operators or types of
operators?
2.2. Labor rights
are upheld including rights as specified in ILO Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work.
Are social rights covered by
relevant legislation and
enforced in the country or
area concerned? (refer to
Category 1)
Are rights like freedom of
association and collective
bargaining upheld?
Is there evidence of occur-
Thresholds
‘Low risk’ thresholds:
(1) The area under assessment is not a source of conflict
timber;
AND
(2)The country is not covered by a UN security ban on
exporting timber;
AND
(3) The country is not covered by any other international
ban on timber export;
AND
(4) Operators in the area under assessment are not involved in conflict timber supply/trade;
AND
(5) Other available evidence does not challenge a ‘low risk’
designation.
‘Specified risk’ thresholds:
(6) The area under assessment is a source of conflict timber;
AND/OR
(7) Operators in the area under assessment are involved in
conflict timber supply/trade, (identified entities should be
specified whenever possible and in compliance with the
law);
AND/OR
(8) The country is subject to a ban on timber exports;
AND/OR
(9) Individuals or entities in the forest sector are facing UN
sanctions.
‘Low risk’ thresholds:
(10) Applicable legislation for the area under assessment
covers all ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work,
AND the risk assessment for the relevant indicators of
Category 1 confirms enforcement of applicable legislation
('low risk');
OR
(11) Applicable legislation for the area under assessment
does not cover all ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights
at Work but other regulations and/or evidence of their implementation exist. Reports do not lead to conclusions of
Conflict timber. The links between timber exploitation and conflict are essentially of two broad types:
First, revenues from the timber trade may be channeled towards activities that perpetuate conflict, such as the
purchase of weapons. Thus, ‘conflict timber’ is defined as ‘timber that has been traded at some point in the chain
of custody by armed groups, be they rebel factions or regular soldiers, or by a civilian administration involved in
armed conflict or its representatives, either to perpetuate conflict or take advantage of conflict situations for personal gain. Conflict timber is not necessarily illegal’ (Global Witness 2002 cited in Le Billon 2003).
Second, the exploitation of timber may itself be a direct cause of conflict (Thomson and Kanaan 2003). This
may be because of disputes over, for example, ownership of forest resources, the distribution of benefits, local
environmental degradation, or social conflicts caused by immigration of timber workers. In some countries, especially when other sources of income are lacking, there is little attempt to ensure that timber production is sustainable
or
socially
responsible
(Source:
UNEP,
Africa
Environment
Outlook:
http://www.unep.org/dewa/Africa/publications/AEO-2/content/205.htm). Such cases however are assessed under
indicators 2.2 and 2.3 thus are not in the scope of indicator 2.1.
1
2 of 5
Forest Stewardship Council®
rences of compulsory or
forced labor?
Is there evidence of occurrences of discrimination?
Is there evidence of occurrences of child labor?
Is the country signatory to
the relevant ILO Conventions or are the ILO Fundamental Rights and Principles at work upheld?
Is there evidence that any
groups (including women)
feel adequately protected
related to the rights mentioned above?
2.3. The rights of
indigenous
and
traditional peoples
are upheld.
Are any violations of labor
rights limited to specific
sectors?
Are there indigenous peoples,
and/or
traditional
peoples present in the area
under assessment?
Are the provisions of ILO
Convention 169 and United
Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples2 (UNDRIP) enforced in
the area concerned? (refer
to Category 1)
Is there evidence of violations of legal and customary rights of indigenous or
traditional peoples?
Are there any conflicts of
substantial
magnitude3
systematic violations of rights. When labor laws are broken,
cases are efficiently followed up via preventive actions
taken by the authorities and/or by the relevant entities.
SLIMF: Applicable legislation for the area under assessment does not cover the ILO Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work but there is negligible evidence of violation
of ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work;
AND
(12) Other available evidence do not challenge a ‘low risk’
designation.
‘Specified risk’ thresholds
(13) Applicable legislation for the area under assessment
covers all ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
but the risk assessment for relevant indicators of Category
1 confirms 'specified risk';
AND/OR
(14) The applicable legislation for the area under assessment contradicts indicator requirement(s);
AND/OR
(15) There is substantial evidence of widespread violation
of the ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
‘Low risk’ thresholds
(16) There is no evidence leading to a conclusion of presence of indigenous and/or traditional peoples in the area
under assessment;
OR
(17) The presence of indigenous and/or traditional peoples
is confirmed or likely within the area under assessment.
The applicable legislation for the area under assessment
covers the basic principles of ILO governing the identification and rights of indigenous and traditional peoples 4 and
UNDRIP AND risk assessment for relevant indicators of
Category 1 confirms enforcement of applicable legislation
('low risk');
OR
(18) The presence of indigenous and/or traditional peoples
is confirmed or likely within the area under assessment.
The applicable legislation for the area where indigenous or
traditional peoples are present does not cover all basic
principles of ILO governing identification and rights of indigenous and/or traditional peoples and UNDRIP but other
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf).
3
For the purpose of the Indicator 2.3, a conflict of substantial magnitude is a conflict which involves one or more
of the following:
a) Gross violation of the legal or customary rights of indigenous or traditional peoples;
b) Significant negative impact that is irreversible or that cannot be mitigated;
c) A significant number of instances of physical violence against indigenous or traditional peoples;
d) A significant number of instances of destruction of property;
e) Presence of military bodies;
f) Systematic acts of intimidation against indigenous or traditional peoples.
Guidance:
In the identification of conflicts of substantial magnitude one must also be aware of possible parallel activities of
other sectors than the forest sector that also impact the rights of indigenous/traditional peoples and that there can
be a cumulative impact. This cumulative impact can lead to a ‘gross violation of indigenous peoples’ rights’ or
2
3 of 5
Forest Stewardship Council®
pertaining to the rights of
indigenous and/or traditional peoples?
Are there any recognized
laws and/or regulations
and/or processes in place
to resolve conflicts of substantial magnitude pertaining to indigenous or traditional peoples’ rights?
What
evidence
can
demonstrate the enforcement of the laws and regulations identified above?
(refer to Category 1)
Is the conflict resolution
broadly accepted by affected stakeholders as being
fair and equitable?
regulations and/or evidence of their implementation exist.
Cases when rights are broken are efficiently followed up
via preventive actions taken by the authorities and/or by
the relevant entities;
AND
(19) There is no evidence of conflict(s) of substantial magnitude pertaining to rights of indigenous and/or traditional
peoples;
OR
(20) There is evidence of conflict(s) of substantial magnitude pertaining to rights of indigenous and/or traditional
peoples. Laws and regulations and/or other legally established processes exist that serve to resolve conflicts in the
area concerned, and such processes are recognized by
affected stakeholders as being fair and equitable.
Note: Processes for resolution of conflicts pertaining to use
rights, cultural interests or traditional cultural identity should
provide means for recourse. They should be free from
overwhelming structural imbalances or inherent unfairness.
They should be acceptable to affected parties giving them
a means to resolve any conflicts of substantial magnitude.
Rights may be defined by international structures (e.g., UN)
and local legal structures;
AND
(21) Other available evidence do not challenge a ‘low risk’
designation.
‘Specified risk’ thresholds
(22) The presence of indigenous and/or traditional peoples
is confirmed or likely within the area. The applicable legislation for the area under assessment covers ILO provisions
governing the identification and rights of indigenous and
traditional peoples and UNDRIP but risk assessment for
relevant indicators of Category 1 confirms 'specified risk';
OR
(23) The presence of indigenous and/or traditional peoples
is confirmed or likely within the area. The applicable legislation for the area under assessment contradicts indicator
requirement(s) (refer to 2.2.6);
AND/OR
(24) Substantial evidence of widespread violation of indigenous or traditional peoples’ rights exists;
AND/OR
(25) Indigenous and/or traditional peoples are not aware of
their rights;
AND/OR
(26) There is evidence of conflict(s) of substantial magnitude pertaining to the rights of indigenous and/or traditional
peoples. Laws and regulations and/or other legally established processes do not exist that serve to resolve conflicts
in the area concerned, or, such processes exist but are not
recognized by affected stakeholders as being fair and
equitable. Note under threshold No 20 applies.
‘irreversible consequences’ but the extent of the contribution of forest management operations needs to be assessed.
The substance and magnitude of conflicts shall be determined through NRA development process according to
national/regional conditions. NRA shall provide definition of such conflicts.
4
International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 (http://www.ilo.org/indigenous/Conventions/no169/lang-en/index.htm)
4 of 5
Forest Stewardship Council®
Indicator
Sources of
information
Risk determination
and specification (if
not low risk) and justification for each
threshold
2.1. The
forest sector
is not associated with
violent
armed conflict, including that
which
threatens
national or
regional
security
and/or linked
to military
control.
2.2. Labour
rights
are
respected
including
rights
as
specified in
ILO Fundamental Principles
and
Rights
at
work.
Documents
as in the
overview
given
in
attachment.
Risk determination:
Low risk
Documents
as in the
overview
given
in
attachment.
Risk determination:
Low risk
2.3.
The
rights
of
Indigenous
and
Traditional Peoples
are
upheld.
Documents
as in the
overview
given
in
attachment.
Functional
scale5
Guidance on
Control
Measures
Stakeholder
feedback
Country
Justification:
All ‘low risk’ thresholds
are met (1, 2, 3, 4 and
5) and there is no other
evidence of ‘specified’
risk. None of the ‘specified risk thresholds’ are
met.
Justification:
‘Low risk’ thresholds 10
and 12 are met and
there is no other evidence of ‘specified’ risk.
The above is based on
the assumption that
category 1 confirms
‘low risk’. To be confirmed.
Risk determination:
Low risk.
Country
Country
Justification:
‘Low risk’ thresholds 18,
19 and 21 apply. Cases
when rights of IP are
broken are incidental
and caused by individuals. Regulation exists
that protect the rights
holders. Conflicts are
not of substantial magnitude.
5
Spatial units based on non-geographical characteristics, e.g. type of forested area tenure/ownership, scope of management,
SIR.
5 of 5